Halo: Overrated?

[watisdis]

Let me simply put it this way, Console is like Lotus Elise, cheap, good lookin' quick car, & very fun to drive, but not very practicle. You buy it, you can do track day stuff with it, have lotsa fun, but you neither can do boring every-day shopping-kids-school-work stuff, nor you could do serious racing.

PC on the other hand is like fully adjustable car. If you put some cash in it, add a lil bit of talent & brains (most important), it turns into the F1 car & a practicle family car & everything you can possibly want at the same time.

That's the thing that has always bothered me about PC gaming: To have an enjoyable experience, you need to have the latest and greatest in graphics card technology stuffed inside your PC. All that shit isn't free, so when it's all said and done you end up spending a good chunk of change (way more than the $60 console game) just to have the (dis)privilage to play on your PC. Some months later, maybe a year or so, and your equipment won't be able to play the upcoming 'super-duper ultimate 4000 x 6000 resolution 1 terabyte ram 10,000 watt PSU minimum requirements' (sarcasm folks...) game. Developers of console games however, try and squeeze as much out of that little unit, making the $300-$400 you paid for it earn it's keep. /rant

P.S. As you've might have guessed, I've been on a PC game boycott for about 10 years now...so who's with me?

 

[ViperVX]

That's the thing that has always bothered me about PC gaming: To have an enjoyable experience, you need to have the latest and greatest in graphics card technology stuffed inside your PC. All that shit isn't free, so when it's all said and done you end up spending a good chunk of change (way more than the $60 console game) just to have the (dis)privilage to play on your PC. Some months later, maybe a year or so, and your equipment won't be able to play the upcoming 'super-duper ultimate 4000 x 6000 resolution 1 terabyte ram 10,000 watt PSU minimum requirements' (sarcasm folks...) game. Developers of console games however, try and squeeze as much out of that little unit, making the $300-$400 you paid for it earn it's keep. /rant

P.S. As you've might have guessed, I've been on a PC game boycott for about 10 years now...so who's with me?

I c your point & it's a good one. But there's one thing. It's true, that to enjoy every new game on max settings you need to upgrade your pc about every 18 months with 2000$ in your pocket, which is a lot of money. But you're not paying for nothing. Never mind better performance in other applications, PC needs to be upgraded because games become more & more good looking every year. Console gfx & effects almost stay on the same place. Even at Xbox 360 & PS3 release date, they were less powerful, gfx-wise, than top PC of the time. Now with a big bunch of Geforce 88series cards & Geforce 9 series on sale in just three monts, pc will get miles ahead (as it happened with ps2).

Don't even need to wait those 3 months, all HQ Multiplatform games atm look better on PC, because consoles just can't cope, which is fine, but it's true.

About the money, yes, it's a problem.
Every new Console Game = 60$, Every new PC Game = 50$.
Fair to say, in 18 months from now, i am sure every single x360 & Ps3 owner will buy at least 20 games (x360 for sure).

So if you buy 20 games in 18 months, owning a PC you save 10$ a game = 20x10 = 2000$ - enough for a VERY serious Upgrade.

I'm not even talking avout the possibility to Download games & stuff on PC, which we all know is wrong & against the law, but somehow it feels right.

And even if you are not a gamer, PC is still a PC, you can't for instance download & save TopGear episodes on X360, or log in to Finalgear.com to rant about Halo3 being a PR-ed peice of junk & PC's being better/worse than consoles, can you?

 

[.cmd]

Just back to the revolution thing, Halo 2's matchmaking was on a completly different level to anything on consoles (or even PC's) at the time.

Also, ( To ViperVX), I doubt that I will be buying 20 games for my 360 in the next 18 months, and even if I do I will be selling most of my old ones to pay for new games.

As for console graphics staying the same, look at the difference between early Xbox 1 games (like Halo 1) and ones nearer the end of its life. Same thing for the 360, look at the games at launch (like Perfect Dark Zero), and now (like Assasins Creed).

 

[watisdis]

ViperVX: Yeah I see what you're saying. I mean my beef with PC games is that they practically force you to upgrade. I'm not saying that your paying for nothing, as I myself have drooled over spectacular PC games running on cutting-edge technology. This is what I'm saying: If you have the means to upgrade your PC on a regular basis, then great. However, some of us aren't made out of money (me), so the practical nature of PC gaming automatically excludes potential PC gamers like myself.

Point #2: You're assuming the average (me for example) console gamer will buy about 20 games a year. Well for my old xbox, I bought about five games in a six year period. Only because I'm very picky about the games I buy with my hard earned money. But yeah, some gamers will buy excessive amounts of games, in which case it will validate your point.

Point #3: I wasn't attacking PCs in general as you seem to be insinuating. Hell I'm the first person to tell you that taking away my PC is like taking one of my limbs. Again, my beef stands with the PC gaming industry as a whole, nothing to do with PC as tool for everything else. PC + Me = Wuv

 

[SuperStalin]

I live in Europe, where the Halo hype was much less pronounced.

Anyway, when Halo1 came out, I played it,
I thought it was fun, until it got boring halfway through.
That was about it.

Similar thing happened with Halo2. It was OK, but nothing spectacular,
I got bored rather quickly and gave up playing.

Then, all the Halo3 hype appeared, I was honestly confused
how a mediocre game like Halo can gather so much popularity.

I think Halo could be the best FPS on consoles,
but it's not even in the top10 FPS games for any self-respecting PC owner.

 

[Top Geek]

In a word: yes.

What's the deal with FPS games, anyway? Who gives a flying flip? They're all the same. Sure, the scenery is different, the player is different, the guns are different, but those are all semantics. They all boil down to running around shooting things. Whoopdeeflippideedo.

 

[NAIDANAC A]

The game was not revolutionary it was evolutionary (I think that is the right way around), it perfected things that were already started (controls). And the 3rd is not overrated, so far it hasn't won an goty awards, it doesn't deserve it. As much as I enjoyed it the game just didn't give me the satisfying feeling that halo 2 did when I played it in the morning.

 

[Ottobon]

What really annoyed me though is the repetitive nature of the leveldesign. I have no idea how anyone could have fun clearing the same corridor the 1000th time.

If there's one word that describes Halo it's "repetition".

Why do pople treat it like the holy grail of gaming? I have no idea.

The truth is i think you can fill in "Halo" with just about any popular FPS game, in particular CS. That game may have some good things about it, but i think its strong points are actually popularity in and of itself, everybody knows somebody who plays it, and the only reason that ever happened is because it can run on any computer and is virtually bug-free and smooth playing for anyone, and the voice communication. CS levels as a whole are usually some of the dreariest and most boring environments out of any game, and its not like theirs anything you can do if you get bored of shooting people, thats all the game does well.

on a side note i will admit i do think the original HL was a great game, I had a seriously good time playing that game, and i never even knew it existed till 2004. I'll admit I'm a bit biased against CS because i knew total shitbags who loved it to death, and because i played it in vain for 2 years with completely wrong connection settings (resulting in me killing no-one almost ever) Once i fixed my connection and got good at the game i was, and still am, infuriated by how i could have wasted my time on a game full of such no-talent ass clowns. *Takes Chill Pill*

Just back to the revolution thing, Halo 2's matchmaking was on a completly different level to anything on consoles (or even PC's) at the time.

I hated match making infinitely, it was like online communism. The whole reason i played online was to either be wowed by someone elses talent or to laugh at idiots who don't know squat, this is probably why i loved Battlefield so much, and in retrospect probably why i can't seem to find anyone else in the world that likes Battlefield.

 

[SuperStalin]

(controls). And the 3rd is not overrated, so far it hasn't won an goty awards, it doesn't deserve it.

It's not just about awards, it's the fact that it got 10/10 or 9/10 reviews
from most gaming magazines, websites etc. There are millions of people raving about it,
but I just can't see what's the fuss about - I think that means "overrated".

 

[Hidden_Hunter]

Over-rated, yes
bad game, no

 

[NAIDANAC A]

It's not just about awards, it's the fact that it got 10/10 or 9/10 reviews
from most gaming magazines, websites etc. There are millions of people raving about it,
but I just can't see what's the fuss about - I think that means "overrated".

It has a 94 meta critic, which isn't "that" amazing

 

[wooflepoof]

Yes overrated. The Napoleon Dynamite complex I've now decided I like to call it.

 

[lilblackdemon]

x2 To be a Halo fan, you need to have started playing Halo 1 before any of the aforementioned "hype" occured. Halo's "hype' only concerns the console gaming world to begin with, and as such, everyone comparing it to PC fps classics is way off base. There is a reason thousands bought an xbox just because of this game (myself included). You see when I first played Halo 1 (way back in 2001), there was no hype about it. My brother had it, I played it and got hooked. Simple as that. When I played it, I had no idea that it would become the franchise it is today. Some of you guys seem to have played it only after it had become hyped up and popular. Therefore your perceptions and expectations where ultimetly altered because of it. No, you can't please everyone (as is apparent in this thread), but Halo seems to have hit on a certain combination that many gamers found enjoyable. And that, is as good as any videogame can hope to accomplish.

I used UT and HL as examples because they are the two FPS's that are regarded as moving the genre forward, HL in single player and UT in multiplayer.

I played Halo on a friend's Xbox shortly after it came out, and said it was by far the best console FPS I had ever played, with only Goldeneye coming close. However, I remarked how it seemed to borrow some elements of both while not really adding anything new.

Halo *does not* push FPS's forward, because it doesn't *need* to. Halo created a single-player FPS with a good combination of game elements. Halo 2 added online multiplayer, a simple evolution rather than a revolution in the grand scheme, although for consoles this is still revolutionary. Halo 3 ups the graphics of the first two while largely maintaining the gameplay balance. All of its "new" big features (replays, "Forge" level editor) have been done before (any competitive RTS or FPS ever made has a replay feature, and Saurbraten and Cube have in-game level editors that can even edit geometry, a significant missing feature in Forge).

It was mentioned that Halo is a bigger deal on consoles than on PC. This couldn't be a truer fact. PC games have featuresets sometimes far beyond what Halo could ever produce, due to the limitations of its platform. But for what it can do, Halo does very well.

EDIT: Halo 3 is receiving very high review scores. Having played it, and even penned my own review for a local newspaper, it is very deserving of these scores. Is it game of the year material? Not in the same year as Call of Duty 4 and The Orange Box. But most years, most likely.

 

[TC]

I've never played a Halo game. But as far as FPS goes, I never had more fun then when I played 007 Golden Eye on N64 when I was younger. That game was awesome back in the day. We use to play 4 player for hours and hours on that.

I've played a few FPS on PC and I always get pissed at the controls. It takes quite a while to get all the commands/functions down on the keyboard before getting good at it.

 

[NAIDANAC A]

EDIT: Halo 3 is receiving very high review scores. Having played it, and even penned my own review for a local newspaper, it is very deserving of these scores. Is it game of the year material? Not in the same year as Call of Duty 4 and The Orange Box. But most years, most likely.

Call of Duty is overrated. Orange Box and Bioshock are in completely different leagues then COD4

 

[lilblackdemon]

Call of Duty is overrated. Orange Box and Bioshock are in completely different leagues then COD4

Call of Duty 4 is the best CoD so far, especially the A-130 mission, and should be mentioned in GoTY award lists along with Halo 3. Orange Box and Bioshock should win most GoTY awards, however.

That said, CoD4 and Halo 3 will sell more than either Bioshock or Orange Box ever could, because the former have broken into the mainstream and the latter have not.

 

[BigDaveDogg]

I haven't played Halo in forever. I used to play it on the PC, and got used to those controls. Then I started playing on XBox, playing with friends, linking 'Boxes. Then Halo 2 came out, that was alright...always thought orig Halo was better, so went back to playing it on the PC. Now I haven't played a video game in ages, and I think tomorrow I might pick up a 360 and play this #951 of the first 1000 Halo 3's available to the public. I'll have to check the thread for Live gamer tags and play with some of you guys (I think there's a thread like that here.)

Time to get back into pwnin n00bs.